Hardware guys again, quick question about CPUs
 

Checking out some quad core processors

Thinking about picking up: Intel Quad Core Extreme Edition QX6850 3.00GHz 8M (4Mx2) 1333MHz Socket LGA 775 OEM - $379

Then there is the: Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor QX9650 1333MHz 3GHz 12MB LGA775 EM64T OEM - $750

Is the 4mb of cache worth it, what else is the difference? Both are quad core... This is for my desktop... would 2 of the QX6850 blow away a single QX9650?

It depends what you're planning to use it for. If you have the cash, go for more RAM rather than CPU cache, unless you plan to encode several videos at one time...

Go with the 379$ quad cores wont over heat .. spread spectrum technology... 2 extreme i would say if your doing a shit load of video editing would press the heat barrier a lil above comfortable

actually i dont encode videos or anything THAT cpu intensive (maybe photoshop), but i multitask like a mother... i just figure its time to put together something new but there def is no point in me going overboard if i'll never use it

just want to be able to load things quickly and jump around without any delays

gotcha... but in terms of processing... 3ghz is 3ghz between them both right? i mean... the $750 one isn't going to outperform the $379 processor by about 50% (price difference) right?

RAM is very useful for multitasking. CPU cache isn't. You could get an extra 4GB of RAM with the savings. That's what I'd do.

sweet... i have 2gb right now i believe

its 4 cpus vs 2cpus 3ghz is 3ghz... Intell vs AMD .. i would go with Intell....

4 cpus will spread the weight over 4
2 cpus will spread the weight over 2

Every company comes out with "new" technology "extreme core" or whatever but basics are basics ...
Would you put your car on 2 stilts and work under it ... or would you rather have 4 stilts

THIS IS A MUST... 4 GB of ram and 10,000 RPM Raptor Drive.. you will notice a great speed increase

Right, but they are both "quad-core" so they are both 4 cpus right?

http://www.stalliontek.com/product_p/cpc2dx-x6850.htm - $379

and

http://www.computerlx.com/product_vi...roduct_ID=1193 - $750

Why does clubchicks look like Juicy's thinner brother... ?

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS REVIEW

Ok so a QX6850 running at 4GHz is 53c and a QX9650 running at 4GHz is 35c? Dam thats not just a improvement thats a freakin leap.

Thats almost a 20c difference in temperature which means that at the stock speed this chip(and the ones to come in march) will probably be some of the most efficient CPUs ever.

I just hope that AMDs Phenom is ready for Penryn. I think this will be one interesting shoot out. And I am eying the Q6600 equivalent for and upgrade in 2008.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/24...m-intel-qx6850

Why LGA775?

Instead of blowing $750 for a LGA775

Intel Core i7 920 $289
ASUS P6T $240
RAM ~ $150 a good 6GB DDR3 kit

I need input like this, thanks!

jesus, prices went down a lot this isn't a bad buy at all

Yep, prices are dropping like crazy, it's a good time to be going lookin for a powerful workstation, plenty of dream machines out there for well under $1K... unheard of even 12 months ago.

the i7 lowers your clock speed to 2.66 GHz and the FSB is 1066 MHz
but it is built with a 3-tier cache architecture.

The qx6850 is a 2007 processor - I think they are discontinued?

LOL... my main home pc is a box I built years ago rocking an 800 Mhz Duron and a gig of RAM, Windows XP, and a Gforce 4 Ti 4200 w/128 mb video card... runs pshop and many other apps same time no lag.. love this computer :)

mmmm I am also looking to upgrade my mobo.... for some weird reason the Mobo I have is making weird noises around the CPU area every time I do something that requires a lil processing (not mechanical noises).... P4 3.4 Ghz with 4GB of ram....

The RAM certainly helped but I do so much fucking multitasking that one core acting like a big boy with 2 cores is just fucked up ...... when time comes to show what it is made of .... it just suffers so much...its not funny....

I currently have this app I use every single day that hogs all the computer resources (CPU 100%) and can't do shit even if I wanted to ... so I guess it is time to go Quad...

Ram helps... but if the CPU is completely hogged in one app, no amount of ram will matter....

I think that your best bet would be to go with the $379 one and go with a higher end motherboard and put your money into 16-32GB of ram. 4G Dimms are only $95 now.

Brad

Reviews of the i7 920

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...or-review.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/intel-...nd-965-review/
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...54&Item id=63
http://www.techspot.com/review/124-i...7-920-940-965/
http://www.cpu3d.com/review/6265-1/i...roduction.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...5-965-review/1
http://www.tweaknews.net/reviews/intel_i7-920_nehalem/
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci7-920-p1.html
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...re/1831_1.html
http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/...el-DX58SO.html

:upsidedow

It beat down a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (a $1500 CPU) in bandwidth benchmark

$300 CPU vs $1500 in Crysis:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-16.html

in video encoding this thing is very nice for the price

www.apple.com

mac pro...

it will out encode anything you could ever build

If you want to look beyond the processors you first listed, consider
that AMDs multicore processors are much more "multicore" than Intels.
AMDs chips have two or four almost complete processors on the chip.
Intel's don't - they have one each of most of the components, shared
between the "cores". It's like the difference between a burger meal
with two meat patties on the Intel side, and two complete hamburgers
on the AMD side. So if you plan to do a lot of multi-tasking where the
background tasks are actively doing something, an AMD may be a
better choice. We've used both to run multiple complete operating
systems. In that kind of torture test, the AMD will be much faster
because each core is complete, with it's own FSB memory controller, etc.

I am a software guy, not a hardware expert, so this information may
be outdated, but it was correct several months ago.

Well, I have i7 920, and I also have the qx9650.

The i7 is twice as fast in my 3d renderings. Why would you spend twice as much for 2 year old tech that is half as fast? I don't get that.

also, if you wait a little longer(end of this month), the Xeon versions of the i7 is being released.

According to Computer America, with the introduction of Intel's Core i7, this is outdated.

Don't compare clock speeds. The 2.66 ghz of the i7 is faster out of the box than a 3.0ghz of the last generation. Plus, they are easily overclocked. Mine runs at 3.8ghz. It's a $280 chip that runs faster than the $1000 version, and like I said earlier, it's double the speed of my older intels(Qx version, q6600 etc.) I've never been more impressed by a chip launch than this one, and I've been through quite a few in the last several years, as I have a 3D animation business, so I stay on top of the fastest stuff I can get.